High court ruling could affect campaign donations

Thursday

Apr 3, 2014 at 12:01 AM

By Matt MurphyState House News Service

BOSTON - Well-heeled Massachusetts political donors will be free to spread their wealth among as many candidates for state and federal office as they wish this year after the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down aggregate federal campaign contribution limits, a ruling that state regulators said would extend to state limits as well.The decision, heralded as the most significant campaign finance court ruling since the Citizens United decision, touched off a swift rebuke from some members of Congress and from campaign reform advocates who have been fighting to limit the impact of money on politics.Congressman Joe Kennedy III said Congress should act immediately to address the court ruling’s "damage."The change, however, could steer money away from so-called Super PACs that popped up after the Citizens United decision and toward individual candidates and party organizations, a shift that would increase transparency around political giving, according to one expert.In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that aggregate limits on political donations violated the constitutional right to free speech. The ruling eliminated the $48,600 cap in federal law on contributions by individuals every two years to candidates for federal office, as well as a separate aggregate cap of $74,600 to political party committees.Individual contribution limits to any one candidate or party were left unchanged by the ruling."We’re still reviewing it to determine what it means for Massachusetts. It’s safe to say however the $12,500 aggregate limit is gone," said Jason Tait, a spokesman for the Office of Campaign and Political Finance. While the state’s $500 annual contribution limit to any one candidate would not be changed by the ruling, Tait said donors would be free to make maximum contributions to more than just 25 candidates as imposed under the current cap.Tait said lawyers for OCPF are reviewing and have not yet determined whether the $5,000 aggregate state contribution limit to political parties and city and town party organizations would also be negated by the ruling. If it does apply, donors could be freed to give up to $5,000 to multiple local and state political party organizations.Common Cause Massachusetts, a leading voice for campaign finance reform in the Bay State, criticized the decision as one that would open the floodgates wider for money and donors to exert influence on state and national politics."This decision will dramatically increase the corrupting influence of big money, here in Massachusetts and across the country," said Pam Wilmot, the group's executive director. "Each member of our congressional delegation and every candidate for Congress will now be able to solicit multi-million dollar gifts from ultra-wealthy donors. Common sense tells us that folks who can give that kind of money are going to want something in return."Raymond La Raja, an associate professor of political science at UMass Amherst, said the ruling could actually be a positive development for those who favor campaign finance reform.La Raja said lifting the limit on total contributions could steer money away from shadowy Super PACs and into the campaign accounts of candidates and political parties who disclose their donors to the Federal Elections Commissions and the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance, thereby increasing transparency."The fabric of regulation is already torn. We have all these Super PACs so maybe this will encourage contributions within the system so at least you can connect the dots where the money is coming and going," La Raja said. "Rich people can spend money. The Supreme Court already said this. They’re already spreading their influence, so I’d rather have it be more accountable and transparent."La Raja called the state’s $500 annual campaign contribution limit "ridiculously low," and said he would advise the Legislature to immediately double or triple the limit to encourage donors to give within the candidate and party structures rather than turning to Super PACs.Republican gubernatorial candidate Charles Baker has also criticized the state’s contribution limits for being too low, arguing that the system protects incumbents and makes it particularly hard for Republicans to compete in the heavily Democratic state.Don Berwick, a Democratic candidate for governor, said he was "deeply concerned" that the decision would give "even more political influence to very few extremely wealthy individuals.""This is yet another step in the wrong direction, building on the destructive Citizens United decision, and threatening to undermine the principle of ‘one-person-one-vote,'" he said in a statement.